Six most important topics to introduce someone to 9/11?

[scubadiver]

What would yours be?

At my work place we have an internal newsletter and I am hoping that the guy who designs and prints them will let me write an article for the next issue. The word count will likely to be about 900 words (enough to fill a page). So I am thinking of 9 100-word paragraphs.

besides an introductory paragraph, I am thinking of having six paragraphs for 9/11, a paragraph for 7/7 and a paragraph for the current alleged terror plot.

I think six would pretty much cover everything. I know pretty much all the evidence and there is too much of it to be concise. So what are THE six most important topics that would make a great intro to entice people to investigate and, importantly, in what order. But I don't what stuff that will make it off-putting like thermite, science or complicated physics (though Newton will be accessible to most people).

[MiniMauve]

I'd stick to things that tend to strike anyone, no matter their scientific knowledge, as suspicious.

1. The near freefall speed of the collapses of WTCs 1 & 2. It doesn't make sense that the floors below the initial collapse would not have, at the very least, slowed the rate of the collapse. I would include a link to a slow motion video of the collapses. Then compare them to the collapse of WTC 7, which Larry Silverstein (the leasee of the whole WTC complex?) actually stated was 'pulled'. Then make the link that if WTC7 was pre-wired for a pull, it's sensible to assume WTC1&2 were, also.

2. The relevant data on melting points of steel with empasis that the steel used in the construction of the towers was tested (rated? guarranteed?) to not significantly weaken for 6 hours at 2000 deg F vs the high temperature potential of burning jet fuel of only 1800 deg F. Not to mention that the jet fuel is so combustible it would burn off quickly leaving only mundane office materials to continue burning at a lower temperature. Also, I have heard firefighting experts state that the large, dark smoke clouds, as seen coming out of the towers, indicate that the fires were lessening.

3. The apparantly complete pulverization of all non-metal materials in the towers. Ludicrous when u think about it that it all turned to dust. What could have pulverized the towers so completely? Here again, a video link showing floors exploding outwards ahead of the collapse wave is indispensible. Seeing is believing.

4. The molten iron found at the bottom of the rubble that took weeks to cool. How could burning jet fuel and/or burning office materials have created this? What could have created it?

5. The disintegration of the top portion of the tower (was it WTC1 or WTC2?) that appears to disintegrate in mid-air as it appears to list to the side and the amazing luck that both towers collapsed uniformly into their own footpaths. Classic behaviour of buildings collapsed via controlled demolitions.

6. The eyewitness testimonies (caught on video on THE day) of WTC workers, medical personnel and firefighters of explosives going off both before the collapses AND seconds before the planes actually hit the towers. Include more video links.

I wouldn't even mention potential culprits til the very end. Let them digest these physical clues, then at the very end ask, "Who would have the means to carry out such an operation? Hint: it's a short list.".

[lostpomme]

I always find people most responsive to:

1, Many hijackers turning up alive.

2, Building 7 collapsing due to fire only (pushing the boundries of plausability for three steel framed buildings to collapse on the same day)

3, Entire plane disintegrated at the pentagon due to raging inferno which decided not to burn nearby books and furniture.

4, Secret service raising no alarm regarding the safety of the president after the towers were hit.

5, Several Firemen (the only witnesses to broadcast live testimony from inside the buildings) stating clearly that multiple explosions were heard.

6, The passport in the street. OK, its an oldie, but seriously, try to imagine ANY series of events allowing it to travel from a pocket or bag through the explosion and onto the street. How come it just happened to be one of the hijackers passports?

Good luck. Its so hard to get the true weight of the argument over without the visual data to back it up. I would include an email address offering free DVD's containing the evidence to back up the statements.

[uselesseater]

I'd say you would have to fit the air defence stand down due to the drills in there for defenite, which takes some monumental doublethink to overcome.

If anyone thinks it plausible that there might be drills which mirror the attacks running at the same time as the real event, then they are probably beyond help and it's best to move on.

[Reflecter]

Ive tried to put a narrative of six or so points in an order i would consider logical that paints a picture of required skepticism without the science etc. Christ its hard to be concise and I exceeded your word count aswell, good luck in getting this together though. I hope it turns opinions for those your aiming at. Heres my 2 cents anyway, some parts are probably slightly out as theres too much to remember.

1. Al-qaeda and Bin Laden.
2. The Hijackers
3. Foreknowledge & drills
4. Insider trading
5. The towers demolitions
6. WTC 7 hush up, admissions and omissions
7. The Pentagon and Shanksville, crash evidence and cell call anomalies.

=================

Al-Qaeda is ‘The (data)Base’ file of the Muharjadeen freedom fighters trained by the CIA to fight the soviets under Reagan. It is not an organised network of terrorists, or an evil ideology. Bin Laden was a CIA asset treated for dialysis in an American Military hospital and visited by CIA whilst wanted in the summer of 2001. Bin Laden denied all responsibility for 9/11 in two clear videos. A dubious video in between claims otherwise, Bush's smoking gun. The FBI in June 06 admitted "They have no hard evidence on Bin Laden for 9/11". The CIA closed its team hunting him down in July 06. Bush “really doesn’t think about him much anymore”, except at poll time perhaps. The Bush and Bin Laden families also holiday together and the Bin-Laden family business is in constructing American military bases, 14 permanent ones now underway in Iraq.

The 19 Hijackers came from Saudi Arabia and Egypt and not Afghanistan or Iraq. Some have been reported by the BBC to be alive and well. The hijackers trained as pilots on American airbases and flight schools, some of whom “could hardly fly at all”. They partied, drank, took drugs, left their Qurans lying around and dated strippers. Hardly devout Islamic behaviour! They were tracked by the FBIs ‘Able Danger’ program which was hampered by Bush and Clintons administrations and monitored by Israeli spies. They bought tickets in their own names but strangely for martyrs did not appear on the flight manifests or turn up in any autopsies.

Foreknowledge from 11 countries came in time to have acted against the plotters. Yet the Bush admin ignored it all and then claimed that “No-one could have foreseen using planes as missiles into buildings”. Except that 22 military drills were taking place that morning, involving hijack scenarios, false radar injections and even a hijacking into the towers! In addition the pilot of Flight 77 previously wrote MASCAL reports about flying Boeing jets into the Pentagon. The drills rendered NORAD and the FAA incapable of standard responses and scattered fighter jets everywhere but where needed. 67 times the prior year, fighters intercepted errant aircraft within 20 mins as SOP, on 9/11 almost 2 hours passed with zero response. One drill conveniently placed 1000 FEMA operatives in Manhattan the night before. VP Cheney had direct control of those drills from a Pentagon bunker.

Insider trading in the coming week made millions from ‘put option’ bets of losses in stock, on companies directly affected by the attacks, so someone sure made use of the warnings wisely. 2.5 million remains unclaimed, whilst the day before, Rumsfeld was trying to explain away, where 2.3 Trillion from Pentagon coffers had gone unaccounted for. It remains unaccounted and forgotten. Billions have been made in contracts for companies tied to the Bush admin since the responding ‘War on Terror’ began. Britain has made over 1.1bn itself and 7 billion remains unaccounted for from Iraq’s capitol and Oil prices are still rising.

The Towers were massively over engineered and designed to withstand multiple Boeing 707 strikes each. There steel was rated to withstand upto 6 hours of 2000f fires before weakening. In 1975 the North tower fire over 6 floors and 3 hours did not damage the steel at all. The 1993 basement bombing also did not fell the towers. Jet fuel can only reach 1800f and quickly burns away. The choking black smoke showed oxygen starved fires. On 9/11 3 WTC towers were destroyed entirely not just 2 and exhibited at least 10 characteristics, of Controlled Demolition. Sudden, total, symmetrical and free fall speed collapses into their own footprints. Demolition squibs ahead of the collapse wave, the cores failure first and molten metal in the rubble for 6 weeks afterwards. The twin towers 425,000 tonnes of concrete each, was also pulverised into sub micron powder, whilst the steel was in convenient lengths for rapid cleanup by Controlled Demolition Inc and was never tested for explosives residues. Numerous suppressed testimonies of explosions, prior the plane impacts and throughout the rescue effort and collapses, make that criminal.

WTC 7 which collapsed in the afternoon, remains largely unknown by the public, un-investigated sufficiently, unspoken of by the media and totally omitted from the final 9/11 Commission Report. The buildings owner, who made a lot in insurance, admitted deciding to pull or demolish it on the day and then watched it collapse. He retracted that later to mean “pull out the firefighters”, when strangely there were none in building seven at that time. These three buildings remain the first and only examples of total collapses from fire in the world history of steel frame skyscrapers and WTC 7 wasn’t even hit by a plane!

The physical evidence of plane crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville sites is scant and recently released NTSB animations of Flight 77’s incredible flight path, put it too high to have clipped the lampposts as we are led to believe occurred. The 2 released tapes and prior 5 frames, do not appear to show the plane and the Pentagon refuses to release 82 other tapes in its possession, some of which were seized by the FBI moments after impact at nearby businesses. Phonecalls from these flights provided the official narrative and the heroics of Flight 93s first stand against terrorism. Yet the many cell phone calls at altitude and considerable speed on paper at least, are impossible, as the first pilot tests of in flight call technology were made in July 2004 by American Airlines and Qualcomm. No recordings have ever been released and the transcripts are also dubious. Seismic data, eyewitness testimonies, media reports and aircraft data also contradict the official story of these mysterious events.

===============

Regards

[scubadiver]

This is what I wrote. Unfortunately, the guy who does the newsletter said it was the wrong audience and he had other reasons. He thinks someone might complain as to its appropriateness, which is understandable I suppose, but then what is the "right" audience for this?

How many buildings collapsed on 9/11?
Introducing the evidence that doubts the official account

“Of course the people don’t want war, that is understandable. But, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” – Hermann Goerring

In 1995, US Intelligence was aware of a plot in which planes would be used as weapons, FBI agents discovered that young, Muslim men with Al-Qaeda terrorist connections were learning to fly at US flight schools (sanctioned by the State Department) and an attempt to get FBI headquarters to sweep all US flight schools to investigate Middle Eastern flight students was ignored. The foreign Intelligence services of Germany, Israel, Russia, UK, France, Jordan, Morocco and Egypt all provided warnings of the attack. Bush was well aware that something imminent was going to happen but these warnings were not ignored. Officials, such as Attorney General John Ashcroft, San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, author Salman Rushdie and senior Pentagon staff, were warned not to fly commercial aircraft that week and either changed to private aircraft or stopped flying completely.

Two notable countries that didn’t provide warnings were Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. The Pakistani Intelligence (ISI) Director, General Mahmud Ahmad, ordered an intermediary to wire $100,000 dollars to Mohammed Atta (the alleged ringleader) which was confirmed by an FBI investigation. The ISI, whose primary sponsor is the CIA, is known to be a supporter of Muslim extremist terrorism. Most of the alleged hijackers were Saudi’s and elements of the Saudi Royal family are also known to be financial sponsors of terrorism. The Saudi’s and the Bin Laden family have business ties with the Bush family going back thirty years.

In the two years prior to 9/11, NORAD carried out exercises involving the use of hijacked airliners as weapons, which the White House claimed as an “unimaginable scenario”. “Vigilant Guardian” and “Northern Vigilance” were two exercises running on 9/11 that simulated an attack on North American defence nationwide, which involved the dispatch of fighters to Alaska and northern Canada. These war games involved the use of simulated information ‘injected’ on to radar screens to make the exercises more real. A field exercise was also being carried out on 9/11 involving the use of a plane under official control posing as a hijacked airliner (odd that Bush claimed it was a “complete surprise”). Pilots based at Andrews Air Force Base, 10 miles from Washington DC, were involved in exercises on 9/11 180 nautical miles away in North Carolina. It is known that fighter pilots were not dispatched to Washington and New York until the attacks were practically over. Standard operating procedure (not requiring Presidential approval) dictates that fighters would have intercepted the airliners within ten minutes of any suspected hijacking.

The picture on the left shows the source of fuel that allegedly brought down the towers was burnt off in the first few second and the black smoke indicates a cooler fire. Though the South tower was hit second and received less damage than the north tower, it collapsed first. The collapse of WTC7 was reminiscent of a controlled implosion, which the 9/11 Commission disregarded and very few people know about. Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories wrote a letter in which he states that “the steel components [of the WTC] were certified to ASTM E119. The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures around 2000˚F for several hours.” Ryan was fired after he made the letter public. Kerosene (airplane fuel) has a maximum temperature of 1700˚F and, according to expert opinion, the temperatures in the towers may have even been lower because the fires were being fed by office furniture. There is considerable evidence the towers were brought down using explosives.

The Neo-Conservatives are an element of the right-wing movement that believes in the transformation of the US military to give the US global domination (of which 20 Members of the Project for the New American Century were chosen by President Bush to serve in his first administration). Afghanistan has always been a key geographical region for the control of oil supply in the Caspian area to the rest of the world. This was recognised by Zbigniew Brzezinksi in his 1997 book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and it's Geostrategic Imperatives”. He argued the US should take the opportunity to enter Central Asia while Russia was still weak. He writes: “…the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being”. A lot of people now believe this attack was that sudden threat (called a false-flag operation). All the available evidence suggests that, far from fighting terrorism, Western Governments are instigating it for their own political and economic agenda.

Other miscellaneous problems: First, where is the alleged plane that hit the Pentagon and what about the Pentagon footage confiscated by the FBI? How could the plane at Shanksville have crashed if the debris covered an 8mile radius? What about the put-options placed on companies that suffered dramatic declines in stock value after the event, suggesting someone had advanced knowledge? Fireman said the fires in the towers could easily have been put out and why have fireman been gagged from claiming they heard explosions just prior to the collapse? What about WTC7, the building collapse that was ignored by the Commission? How did George W Bush manage to sit in that classroom and not do anything for so long? Why didn’t the Secret Service rush him out to safety? The question has to be: what was he really thinking?

[Mark Gobell]

My experience has taught me that "less is more".

Before you consider your message you should consider your audience and your objective.

What do they already know ?

What is my message ?

What do I want to achieve ?

The three principles of an educational message are:

1. Tell them what you are going to tell them - do this with the main and sub headings quickly and dramatically with a logo and plane to remind them visually. Like the "newspapers" do. That's what they're used to.

2. Tell them. This is your message. Remind them of the OCT reason why they fell down. Tell them why you started looking. Then tell them the real reason. Break it down.

3. Tell them what you have told them. Summarise slightly differently and plant the seed of doubt about how we've been fooled. make them want to know more.

==============================================

What do they already know ?

The lowest common denominator among what you think they may know should be the focus of your very simple and easy to digest message.

It is no good trying to work out who among them are more or less enlightened about this or any other issue.

You need to address the lowest level of awareness and focus on that so that you have the widest possible audience. Some might respond with "blimey that's interesting", whereas others may claim to have known it already, but of course they won't have.

What is my message ?

The lowest expectation of understanding is somewhere between knowing or remembering nothing at all and the tiniest essential bit of the OCT which has, after all been their only diet for 5 years.

That being: hijackers flew the aircraft into the Twin Towers and that's why they fell. Bast*ards. End of story.

Anything beyond that and the majority will either not read and/or not understand it.

Forget anything technical unless you work in a lab. Big turn off. Free fall speed - wtf does that mean. Don't remind them about how little they know of the world. Get my drift.

Pick a subject. Just one. That's difficult enough to start with. Remember this could be the first time that some of them have ever thought about the subject, not just in 5 years, but ever !

The subject must therefore be big enough for them to go away at least slightly changed by what they have read. Even if they don't believe it. They must remember it. That's ejakashun.

What do I want to achieve ?

An obvious question you might ask, but one that is surprisingly often overlooked. To get the answer ask yourself what you don't want to achieve. You don't want to provide ammunition to be ridiculed. You don't want to encourage disbelief. You don't want your audience to disregard your message. You don't want them to be too shocked that they shut off. You don't want to bombard them with too much that they will shut off. You don't want your message to be complicated.

You may not be able to achieve all of this. I remember one lovely evening with friends sitting drinking wine and chatting about all kinds of things. I moved onto 9/11 and after about 30 minutes one of the women just burst out crying, stood up and ran off. She withdrew because it is very upsetting so don't be surprised to get denial and some flak, however simple your message. I listened to Alex Jones last night. I rest my case.

Make it easy to relate too. Time passes quickly, 5 years can represent a lot in people's lives, a child growing, a break up, a marriage etc. Money talks. Don't preach at them. Help them to "not feel different" just because they don't know. Break it down in small, easy to digest chunks. Use simple language. Most people are obsessed with fashionable phrases these days - use them.

Use the KISS principle. Keep It Simple, Stupid. Or whatever version of that you prefer. Keep It Short and Sweet. Keep It Simply Stupid.

My suggestion: (with WTC logo and incoming plane)

Attention grabbing headline:

9/11 - 5 Years - Time to Move On ?

(wow really, was it, little Jimmy was only 5)

Sub heading:

University Professors still asking: Why did the Twin Towers fall down ?

(It's not you that's asking, it's the knowledgable, respectable Professors.)

Hang on what's that ? University Professors asking why the Twin Towers fell down ? What, are they stupid ? Any fool knows that right ? Doh ! I mean we all watched it on TV didn't we ? We know what happened. Are they blind ?

This is madness. No way would I pay my kids university fees to be taught by some stupid Professors who don't watch the TV ! Did they miss the fact that hijackers flew planes into the Twin Towers and murdered 3000 innocent office workers and New York's finest Firefighters. I saw them crash with my own eyes for Chrissake. God help us.

Agreed. Neither would I. But I wanted to know more.

So what's going on here I asked ? Who is saying this stuff ? Why do they still have doubts after 5 years ? What's the point of going over that all over again ? Dragging the past up for what ? Get over it - time to move on right ?

Agreed. We should move on. Five years is a long time. But . . .

This is the difficult bit. By now you would hope to at least have their attention, albeit with a sense of intrigue and/or forboding. Some may have aready made up their minds that they are not going to like this and some of those may have already withdrawn. Others may be concentrating and want to find out more.

So what to do ?

Well. I think the trick is easier to achieve in print than it is verbally. I would keep my powder dry as it were and just let your true story unfold, saving the best bit until last. Tell them how you found out. Then at the end when they are gripped, tell them what you found out. That's the best bit. That's your message. That way you will keep their attention.

My girlfiriend/husband/pet monkey sent me this email and like you I was baffled. But I wanted to know more.

At this point we could debate whether you should introduce the internet here or not. It provides most doubters with another convenient excuse because you can read about 12 foot blood sucking lizards on the internet can't you. Case closed. I'm out.

Maybe a better tactic is to say my mate / pet monkey lent me this book.

Pick a book. A respectable one. Candidates ?

How about the OCT bible ? The 9/11 Commission Report. The US Governments very own version of events. That way they can't dismiss your message being based on internet mind porn. This tome is respectable and therefore must be right.

Tell them how you tried to find out about what your friend had told you about. Reading it in a frenzy in one night from cover to cover. Yet I could not find one mention of what my friend had told me about.

He / she then gave me another book: 9/11 Commission: Omissions and Distortions written by the eminent Professor of Theology: David Ray Griffin.

As the title suggests this book told me all about what the governments report had either omitted to mention, or had lied about. I was shocked. I couldn't believe it. Here in this book I found the answer to what my friend had told me. Surely this cannot be true. Why would the US Government lie and twist the truth? Surely there was some mistake. I saw the Twin Towers fall on TV with my own eyes. I saw the planes hit them, that's why they collapsed on top of so many office workers anbd firefighters.

I decided to check this stuff out some more.

Now I would suggest you quote heavily from eye witness testimony here. That's real poeple who were inside the buildings at the time saying real things.

Quote as much as you can from the firefighters, naming them, and tell your audience what they said about the explosions going off.

Quote as many as you care to. To make the message sink in.

This is your message.

End your message with their quotes, not your own words.

Do not try and embellish or qualify their words. Let them stand as they are.

Remind them separately of how many office workers and firefighters died that day.

Summarise:

Tell them how you felt, to make it personal and identify with the incredulous shock they may be feeling.

Remind them that before you started reading books about 9/11, like them, before they started reading your article, you believed everything you had been told which was the official government version in the book the 9/11 Comission Report.

Tell them that up until that you started your journey you thought the Twin Towers collapsed because of the planes crashing into them.

Remind them of the firefighter quotes about the explosives like detonators, like they were trying to bring the buildings down.

Mention the Professors as a footnote rather than the main body of your piece. Tell them briefly that because of the brave firefighters eye witness accounts, countless professors of physics, theology, etc., have now proved that beyond any reasonable doubt that the Twin Towers did not collapse from jet fuel fires alone, steel framed skyscrapers don't collapse like that. Ever. No, what i have learned is that those innocent office workers and firefighters were murdered by those who were responsible for wiring those buildings with explosives and who planned and succeeded in bringing those towers down in a what is called a "controlled demolition."

They said the world changed on 9/11. For all those who lost their loved ones their world changed forever. Mine has too. How about you.